"Oh, it's not as bad," they say, and they're right, but somehow the practice of cutting into baby genitals, even if the cut isn't as severe, is somehow still okay in the eyes of these Christians? Petty moral relativism at its finest.
-
I'm not denying that the OT circumcisions weren't as bad. This is obvious. What I am objecting to is this either/or logic. That if we condemn the more violent form of it, then that means that the less severe form is off the hook from criticism. No, they are both gross.
of course they are both gross. but the key point is, the modern (since 200 AD) form of rabbinic circumcision (= USA "medical" circumcision) is worse and more violent than OT circumcision.https://www.littleimages.org/drawing-ot-milah-circumcision-vs-modern-periah/ …